Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

What nobody knows is that the project that ended up as the SHVY started as a GEV-PC sometime prior to the Battle of Montreal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA

:D

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

I don't even have to look at that clip to know it's from Pentagon Wars. :D

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

Same here, ColBosch!

My regular Ogre opponent worked for FMC at that time -- he says if you mentioned that movie at work, bad things happened to your career.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

I couldn't find answers to these questions in the rulebook:

1. Can you ram an armor unit protected by a revetment? If so, what effect (if any) does the revetment have on ramming?

2. How many times can a Superheavy Tank ram in a single turn?

3. Rule 6.01.1 says an Ogre can ram "up to two non-Ogre units per turn" while rule 6.02 says that when ramming "If the armor unit is not destroyed, the Ogre may expend one more movement point, stay in that hex, and ram again." Does ramming the same armor unit twice in a row count as ramming one non-Ogre unit or two?

I'm guessing the answers might be as follows:

1. Yes, but it costs an extra movement point to ram a unit in revetment (as is the case with an Ogre reducing infantry in an entrenchment).

2. Since the rules say a Superheavy Tank rams "as if it were an Ogre Mark I" I assume it can ram up to two non-Ogre units a turn if it has the movement points to do so.

3. I always assumed ramming the same unit twice in the same turn counted as ramming two non-Ogre units (no further rams allowed).

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

There's nothing special about a Revetment in the rules; all it does is add a D2. There are no movement penalties, etc defined. It's not even stated that you have to drive in from a specific direction (eg, the "back"). The only distinction made about that is for LOS. Ram as usual.

I'm also not sure where you are getting the "Ogre reducing INF in an entrenchment comment costing an extra movement," there's nothing like that in the rules that I can find. What rules are you looking at? An Ogre is not going to care about a ditch.

6.07.1 refers specifically only to 6.05 and 6.08 when it describes "as if it were an Ogre Mark I." Neither of these has anything to do with ramming multiple units. Specifically, it does NOT reference 6.01.1. A SHVY gets only one ram.

Correct. The intent of the wording is to limit the number of consecutive rams against non-ogre units. Whether that is two separate units, or the same unit twice doesn't matter; they are the same thing.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

It’s in 15.03.05: “For scenarios using the Ogre map, i.e., ramming rules instead of overrun rules, entrenched infantry are not reduced when an Ogre first enters their hex. The Ogre may spend an additional MP to remain in the hex and reduce the infantry normally.” Based on this precedent, it seems likely a revetment would have a similar effect.

I don’t agree. While it’s true that rule 6.01.1 is not referenced neither is rule 6.02, 6.03, or 6.04 all of which (probably) apply to the SHVY as well. In the absence of a specific rule stating the SHVY is limited to a single ram, I would say 6.01.1 applies.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

This is a tough call, because they are dissimilar types of protection; one does not necessarily set a precedent for the other. What really needs to be understood is whether the Ogre is driving over, or through, the revetment in order to ram. This could definitely use some clarification. However, as currently written, revetments do not affect ramming.

One thing that has been very clear over the years is that if the rules do not say it can, then it can't. The "specific ruling" is the non-inclusion of 6.01.1 in 6.07.1. Of 6.02, 6.03 and 6.04; the "ram as an ogre" does not apply for the following reasons (and is also why 6.05 and 6.08 _are_ explicitly called out):

6.02 - is specifically "Ogres ramming armor units." This does not apply because 6.07.1 exists; which calls out explicitly what a SHVY does when ramming.

6.03 - Ramming CPs and Buildings - again, is not called out because SHVYs are explicitly defined within it. The table in 6.03 states how a SHVY behaves while ramming, which is explicitly a different line item than how an Ogre behaves.

6.04 - Movement after ramming - The omission of this in 6.07.1 points out yet another limitation of how a SHVY is not an Ogre; it gets only one ram per turn because 6.04 is NOT included in 6.07.1

The rules are being very particular when defining what "ram as an Ogre" means. If they had left the explicit callouts out of 6.07.1, then there would be room for interpretation to be more broad; but the fact they picked only those two (6.05 and 6.08), excluding the rest, is significant and means the rest do not apply.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

6.02 has to apply because 6.07.01 doesn’t explain what effect a SHVY ramming attack has on the target (If the target is not an Ogre).

Actually, CPs are not referenced on the table. It wouldn’t make any sense for a SHVY to do “2 dice” damage to a CP since CPs don’t take damage that way.

6.04 is not about how many ramming attacks you get (that’s 6.01.1) it’s about whether the SHVY can continue to move after ramming, something which is not addressed in 6.07.1

I think your reading too much into the callouts. And, as I said above, there isn’t even a way to resolve a SHVY ramming attack without using 6.02 nor is there a way to resolve an attack against a CP without the text from 6.03 neither of which is referenced in 6.07.1

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

OK, in this case I do agree, section 6.02 (and 6.02.1, assuming the SHVY has AP guns) should have been referenced in 6.07.1 along with 6.05. I'm not sure 6.08 needs to be referenced, as it comes after, but it does specify Ogres so making it apply to SHVYs as well is at least rational.

Technically, CPs could also be covered by 6.02 as immobile armor units. But since SHVYs ram as Mk Is, 6.03 is covered by inference.

OK, I'm going to agree that this should be an errata. The line about losing treads as a Mk I when using the advanced SHVY rules implies that an (advanced) SHVY moves and rams as an Ogre, with all the "rights and responsibilities" thereof. That said, just because it implies that, doesn't mean it's correct. Not to mention, a SHVY that rams only has a 33% chance of surviving unscathed. I think there needs to be an official ruling about this, but I would suggest for simplicity that SHVYs (advanced or otherwise) be limited to 1 ram per turn, and possibly end its movement after ramming one way or another. If you need a real-world rationale, it's all the crew can handle.

While I (again) agree that a reference to 6.02(.1) is missing, the explicit callout/lack of callout when dealing with exceptions is a long-standing practice with the Ogre rules, and should generally be followed until there's an errata/clarification provided. And when all else fails, use common sense - Ogres can ram multiple times because the don't care about the collisions; SHVYs have human crews who can only take so much impact in a short period of time. Thus, I say SHVYs get 1 ram, Ogres get 2.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

Since the SHVY suffers a 1:1 attack when it rams, I think the situation you're describing would correspond to a "D" result (which results from the crew needing time to recover from the impact). In the case of an "NE" I believe the SHVY should be able to ram again if it has the movement points ("no effect" should mean what it says).